RE: The Paradox of Power....
September 28, 2015 at 4:03 am
(This post was last modified: September 28, 2015 at 4:04 am by TheRocketSurgeon.)
(September 28, 2015 at 2:56 am)Huggy74 Wrote:(September 28, 2015 at 12:20 am)Parkers Tan Wrote: I just wanted to address the knucklehead's claim about Noah's Ark.
A wooden ship of those proportions would be unable to survive a catastrophic storm lasting 40 days because of a phenomenon called "hogging". This happens when a ship breasts the waves -- as the ship tops the wave and the wave passes under the hull, the unsupported or less-supported ends, both bow and stern, sag due to gravity. Then as the ship enters the trough the ends regain buoyancy. Given enough repetitions, the ship will end up breaking apart. It wasn't until the advent of metal framework for ships in the mid 19th century that ships larger than about 350' could be built with the expectation of surviving any length of time in stormy seas.
Noah's Ark was reputedly 450' long, about 100' feet past the seaworthy mark. It would have been broken up in such a cataclysmic storm.
That story is simply false, for that reason alone.
There are accounts of Chinese treasure ships from the 15th century, being up to 600' long.
True, there are accounts, most of which are imperial bragging and have no evidence (they claim to have reached the Americas, too, except again for the whole evidence problem). Do some more reading about the problems of wooden ship construction over 300 feet... it has to do with the tensile strength of even the strongest woods. Without steel reinforcement, even 300' ships have serious problems with leaking because the stresses on the beams warp them. It's called hogging and sagging.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hogging_and_sagging
A Christian told me: if you were saved you cant lose your salvation. you're sealed with the Holy Ghost
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.